I did notice some pretty clear narcissistic and sociopathic tendencies, so it might not be type-related. Either way, it's a good thing.

Running like the wind would've been my advice there. Egad.

Which gap, specifically?

I knew when I wrote that that it didn't make much sense but left it hanging there anyway. When I've had conflicts with ENFps, there's been an interpretive gap for me between what they say and what they do. I think we may share a lot of values, but our problem-solving approaches and comfort zones and ideas about where boundaries exist and how and why to construct them apparently clash. Conflict with ENFp is very hard for me to resolve. Once it starts, we can't even agree on why we've come into conflict in the first place.

I want to know where I stand with a person with regards to emotional distance. I can adapt and go with the flow in life, but I cannot handle emotional ambiguity. I think asking where things might go is covering two things: "how committed is he to this" and "what are the new options/possibilities/restrictions that come with this point of the relationship." I always have to have options - I want to move to California, for example, so I need to know how committed someone is because it has an impact on my life choices. I can't look at my life as a linear development that will unfold - I see it as a collection of possibilities and possible avenues to take (I am not set in my career, I don't want to live here, I don't have kids, so there is a lot of flexibility). So I want to know where I stand with someone so I can adapt my plans to the relationship/figure out if we can do this, etc. I also love feeling secure with someone. My life is in constant flux and there is so much change and my significant other is, ideally, my constant. I love that feeling of emotional security (which is also perhaps why I don't withdraw from them when I feel bad, see below).

Since I grew up in a small town and didn't want to stay there, I'm familiar with this kind of conundrum, but I didn't feel like there were any possibilities for me in the town, so I didn't date anyone local, ever, beyond a compulsory prom date or double date. I would not get involved with anyone, which painted me as a freak and a cold negater. But my one real goal was to get the hell outta Dodge, and it was well worth being lonely and distrusted to be certain I achieved it.

What you said here fascinates me because I am your opposite in a crucial way: I don't want to keep my options open. I am drowning in options that pull me this way and that, and I constantly seek to jettison and eliminate them. So seeing you put things this way really helps me understand more about a starkly different mentality. Maybe this points to why someone with Ne-polr would be my dual.

This also might help explain why one particular ENFp hates me so much, seeing me as uncommitted when nothing could be further from the truth. There must be a different idea about what commitment looks like. I do see many situations as unfolding in a linear way; for me there's a lot of inevitability in various life circumstances, so I don't worry about "what next." I'm looking at it more like this: "In x number of years, the situation is likely to look like xyz, because of abc. How I get there is not all that important. I know I will probably need to do efg, but it's a question of when. For now, I will have to live with a lot of discomfort."

Like I said above - now I am in the very initial stages of seeing an ILE. He is flexible, too, has similar life plans, will retire from the military soon, etc. So the logistics would work very well (also age, etc.). If we take this to the next level, we could easily reach a consensus on where to go next. Before him I was dating someone who is very much tied to this area and I approached it with a different mindset. I knew that if we take this to the next level, I would have to stay here. Of course this is the same for everyone, but I can't just sit and let it happen. I always want to know what's next so I can assess all my options. That is why I am incredibly impatient and incapable of happily taking things slow. I am not sure if this answers your questions.

I don't like taking things slowly either, but it must be for a different reason. I guess, too, that when things are unfolding slowly, I ascribe the slowness to my own "ripeness" and the timing of things outside myself. I wouldn't know how to associate it to another person or have it hinge on them, and to ask someone else to agree to what's coming next--? (My interpretation of what you wrote.) I probably see other people as variables in the larger situation. But my saying all this makes me wonder how anything actually does happen in my life, lol. Maybe it's a problem. :|

Well, actually everything was fine, but I was getting impatient because things wouldn't progress. I think he really needed things to be on his terms and it could very well have been an issue that has nothing to do with type. But when I can't have a crappy day and annoy someone without being told that he is "put off," I really can't help it. I don't believe in being on my best, most accommodating behavior for too long.

I think he felt like "this is how it's going to be, no way! Too pushy and intrusive."
I felt like "I can't have a crappy day and be temporarily annoying. Yeah, no. It's not all about you..."

I did find the severity of his reaction a bit ridiculous. He was all formal, jeez. A simple "I don't think we are a good match" would have been perfectly suitable, but I had to be scolded. Probably not type-related though.

See, things were not progressing. Same as in my case I described...

What did he say that was explicit scolding? You only quoted him on "I no longer want to communicate with you" and you mentioned he was "put off".

Definitely sounds like he had more problems than just that bad day of yours. It might've just all come out then. Not trying to defend him, just saying. And, what would you have wanted if not "formal"? What was the problem with that?

"The person who is best suited to us is not the person who shares our every taste (he or she doesn’t exist), but the person who can negotiate differences in taste intelligently — the person who is good at disagreement. Rather than some notional idea of perfect complementarity, it is the capacity to tolerate differences with generosity that is the true marker of the “not overly wrong” person. Compatibility is an achievement of love; it must not be its precondition."

That's just wrong, some degree of compatibility is definitely required for a relationship, generosity and tolerance don't last forever without that.

No such thing as perfect complementarity but this quote goes to the other extreme.

He kept talking about what we will do when we see each other again, but made no effort to see me (or help me with my efforts to make it happen). I don't like all talk. If you say you want to do something, do it.

What did he say that was explicit scolding? You only quoted him on "I no longer want to communicate with you" and you mentioned he was "put off".

I don't have the text anymore and don't really want to revisit this in detail, but the tone was condescending and formal and he scolded me for basically misbehaving (aka, not acting according to HIS script) and stating that I was in the wrong (which I wasn't, by the most objective standards). He could have just said "sorry, I don't think this is working out" rather than pointing out my "bad behavior" (which didn't exist).

Definitely sounds like he had more problems than just that bad day of yours.

He was pissed off that I didn't let him do what he wanted. He wanted it all on his terms and he sucked at communicating. I am usually more than happy to own my part in a communication breakdown, but when I ask someone if they are ok and they answer "no" and nothing else and leave me hanging for an entire day and night while I worry my little heart out, and then scold me for being "probing," the issue is with them and them alone. Everything was absolutely hunky dory before, until I got annoyed with the constant talk, but no initiative. When I nicely asked if he is really all that interested he ignored me. Then he deliberately made me worry as punishment for asking again what we are going to do. I have dated someone like this before. It's classic narcissist bullshit.

It might've just all come out then. Not trying to defend him, just saying. And, what would you have wanted if not "formal"? What was the problem with that?

See above. Rather than telling me how annoying my behavior is in the most condescending and ridiculously formal tone, he could have just said "sorry, not working for me."

But other red flags suggest I was dealing with a narcissistic sociopath, so this is likely not type-related.

“Let us forget with generosity those who cannot love us”
― Pablo Neruda

He kept talking about what we will do when we see each other again, but made no effort to see me (or help me with my efforts to make it happen). I don't like all talk. If you say you want to do something, do it.

Did you explicitly ask for help with your efforts to make it happen?

I don't have the text anymore and don't really want to revisit this in detail, but the tone was condescending and formal and he scolded me for basically misbehaving (aka, not acting according to HIS script) and stating that I was in the wrong (which I wasn't, by the most objective standards). He could have just said "sorry, I don't think this is working out" rather than pointing out my "bad behavior" (which didn't exist).

I'm not sure if it was actually a condescending tone for the formal expression about not wanting to communicate more if it was just text. The scolding part, ok, that's negative.

He was pissed off that I didn't let him do what he wanted. He wanted it all on his terms and he sucked at communicating. I am usually more than happy to own my part in a communication breakdown, but when I ask someone if they are ok and they answer "no" and nothing else and leave me hanging for an entire day and night while I worry my little heart out, and then scold me for being "probing," the issue is with them and them alone. Everything was absolutely hunky dory before, until I got annoyed with the constant talk, but no initiative. When I nicely asked if he is really all that interested he ignored me. Then he deliberately made me worry as punishment for asking again what we are going to do. I have dated someone like this before. It's classic narcissist bullshit.

Are you sure he made you worry deliberately?

Sounds like your way of "probing" was not compatible with him. (This part could be Socionics related.) That, and maybe some unhealthy stuff going on too, sure.

See above. Rather than telling me how annoying my behavior is in the most condescending and ridiculously formal tone, he could have just said "sorry, not working for me."

But other red flags suggest I was dealing with a narcissistic sociopath, so this is likely not type-related.

@Myst I think trying to dissect this too much is unhealthy for me because I am prone to making excuses for crappy behavior. I have run the scenario by several people and they agreed that he has concerning tendencies of being controlling and lacking empathy. I don't think type is the issue here. He did not take interest in me and my life before that happened and is overall very self-absorbed.

“Let us forget with generosity those who cannot love us”
― Pablo Neruda

@Myst I think trying to dissect this too much is unhealthy for me because I am prone to making excuses for crappy behavior. I have run the scenario by several people and they agreed that he has concerning tendencies of being controlling and lacking empathy. I don't think type is the issue here. He did not take interest in me and my life before that happened and is overall very self-absorbed.

OK, I get you, it's fine, my goal was not making you make excuses for him, noo, that would be too much the other side Definitely don't be a doormat or anything like that. I'm just questioning that he's an actual narcissist instead of this being just a Conflict relationship with a perhaps less than entirely healthy LSI (which isn't necessarily outright narcissism).

I don't know about the empathy part, but otherwise LSI is an overly controlling type from the pov of an IEE. No question about that, I won't debate this with you that he looked controlling to you and he probably was in a sense. The Ti will be taken the wrong way a lot beyond this too, as shown in your posts on the issue about tone. I suggest if you absolutely couldn't take these things in him, don't date another LSI.

Not simply because Socionics says Conflict relations are bad but because in practice it clearly doesn't work for you. These things are pretty central to the LSI type and IEE tends to see them this way you describe it. EIE deals with all that Ti stuff better than IEE. Part of that is how EIE is able to influence them with Fe. Of course this still assumes the person does not have actual issues beyond type characteristics. I also speak from quite heavy experience about how Conflict relations don't work...

OK, I get you, it's fine, my goal was not making you make excuses for him, noo, that would be too much the other side Definitely don't be a doormat or anything like that. I'm just questioning that he's an actual narcissist instead of this being just a Conflict relationship with a perhaps less than entirely healthy LSI (which isn't necessarily outright narcissism).

I don't know about the empathy part, but otherwise LSI is an overly controlling type from the pov of an IEE. No question about that, I won't debate this with you that he looked controlling to you and he probably was in a sense. The Ti will be taken the wrong way a lot beyond this too, as shown in your posts on the issue about tone. I suggest if you absolutely couldn't take these things in him, don't date another LSI.

Not simply because Socionics says Conflict relations are bad but because in practice it clearly doesn't work for you. These things are pretty central to the LSI type and IEE tends to see them this way you describe it. EIE deals with all that Ti stuff better than IEE. Part of that is how EIE is able to influence them with Fe. Of course this still assumes the person does not have actual issues beyond type characteristics. I also speak from quite heavy experience about how Conflict relations don't work...

Anyway, no more dissecting, good luck with your ILE.

I didn't mean to shut you down and I appreciate your input! There have been several red flags that suggest that he does have issues beyond type. But you are right, LSIs are controlling to me.

“Let us forget with generosity those who cannot love us”
― Pablo Neruda

I didn't mean to shut you down and I appreciate your input! There have been several red flags that suggest that he does have issues beyond type. But you are right, LSIs are controlling to me.

A very interesting observation about your impression of LSI's.

Having spent over a year each in relationships with SLI's (your dual) and LSI's (your conflictor) I can say that I found LSI's to be slightly controlling, in the sense that they wanted to establish a clear hierarchy in the chain of command. When they found I could not be controlled, they stopped trying (mostly) to control me, accepted my lead, and just went with the flow.

The SLI never tried to directly control me (which is why I married her) but instead used passive aggression to influence me, which I found to be worse in many ways, but that might have been her aberrant reaction to being with someone who was not reacting to her actions the way that she subconsciously expected - like an IEE would, that is.

I've since thought that a lot of my problems with the SLI had to do with the fact that neither of us had the correct "levers" to steer or influence the other. I do think duals have these levers for each other. I've seen this in my own case.

I'm enjoying reading about your voyage through the socion dating scene. With time, it could rival the one written by an LSI male about his experiences. I can only say I greatly admire your boldness and fortitude.

Having spent over a year each in relationships with SLI's (your dual) and LSI's (your conflictor) I can say that I found LSI's to be slightly controlling, in the sense that they wanted to establish a clear hierarchy in the chain of command. When they found I could not be controlled, they stopped trying (mostly) to control me, accepted my lead, and just went with the flow.

My LIE ex also felt that way about me. But I never just went with the flow with him, I didn't accept his lead or anything like that. We just continued to fight over these things, though nothing too bad. I didn't mind the fights themselves, just if it was a pain in the ass to get something sorted, from a practical standpoint.

I've since thought that a lot of my problems with the SLI had to do with the fact that neither of us had the correct "levers" to steer or influence the other. I do think duals have these levers for each other. I've seen this in my own case.

Agreed. I did not have the Fi "lever" in my relationship with the LIE for sure. When sometimes I managed to be "Fi enough" that worked wonders. Same for him when he managed to be "Fe enough".

I'm enjoying reading about your voyage through the socion dating scene. With time, it could rival the one written by an LSI male about his experiences.

I'm enjoying reading about your voyage through the socion dating scene. With time, it could rival the one written by an LSI male about his experiences. I can only say I greatly admire your boldness and fortitude.

Aw, I this made my day! <3

Now I feel less pathetic about the fact that the ILE is already history and I am currently typing the next candidate.

“Let us forget with generosity those who cannot love us”
― Pablo Neruda

Oddly, I don't find LSIs controlling. I might see them as niggling or rigid, but I can't imagine how they even might have the ability to actually control me. Is that why they're my duals? Why is that when ppl talk about LSIs, I find I see them so differently than people describe? Have I typed a bunch of IEIs as LSI?

Oddly, I don't find LSIs controlling. I might see them as niggling or rigid, but I can't imagine how they even might have the ability to actually control me. Is that why they're my duals? Why is that when ppl talk about LSIs, I find I see them so differently than people describe? Have I typed a bunch of IEIs as LSI?

Very interesting observation. I think you typed them correctly! I have some thoughts on this. It's somewhat of a general question, let me map this out real quick.

So, control of any kind is Se. But! An ethical element is needed to make it personal. Se + logics controls facts, laws, topics, accuracy, systems, and so on. Se + ethics though... they know how to control people, hands-on. In a positive and negative sense, depending on disposition and context. I imagined looking at any SEE, they are the epitome of knowing how to allocate human resources for good or bad purposes. That would be "controlling". Do you know what I mean?

In your situation, you would actually be the one in control, ethically, aided by your Se HA. The LSI is more in charge of the situation as it fits into his or her framework of rules, making sure that those rules are not broken. In comparison to an SEE, who is supervised by exactly this framework, their approach is rigid just as you say. In a sense of keeping everything together instead of intrusively allocating everyone SeFi style. Did this help?

Oddly, I don't find LSIs controlling. I might see them as niggling or rigid, but I can't imagine how they even might have the ability to actually control me. Is that why they're my duals? Why is that when ppl talk about LSIs, I find I see them so differently than people describe? Have I typed a bunch of IEIs as LSI?

It's not that I feel like they are actively controlling me. I am always willing to adapt and accommodate, so when someone is rigid and niggling and a one-path thinker who rejects my way of looking at bigger pictures, a variety of avenues, I will try to accommodate them (when I realize I can't get them to see things in a more complex way). Then I feel trapped in this rigid thought system and feel controlled and limited.

So "they are controlling" is probably not the right way of putting it, but rather "I feel controlled by them." It's like they chain me down with their lack of flexibility.

“Let us forget with generosity those who cannot love us”
― Pablo Neruda

Seconding the dislike of keeping options open to the winds. Having many places to go makes the ahem computation of what to do too complicated, because your next step now has to be assessed for benefits to options A, B and C, instead of just A. If I stick to aiming for option A, I end up with more breadth to manoeuver as I only need to keep one target in sight, and this leaves me more mental space to think up new ways to get there.

I'm also puzzled by the thoughts of re-arranging people instead of circumstances. I've thought it may be enneagram related, or ntr at all, but of me the notion of re-arranging other people's (socionics) ethical relation to me (in my personal life) is... intrusive. They're going to have their feelings anyway. How would you describe (@Kim) this re-arrangement?*

*I guess my way of influencing that would be more roundabout, thinking of non-friends I want things from Not so much sheer enthusiasm (unless sheer enthusiasm exists for another reason, in which case get your earplugs ready ) as little touches/suggestions/judicious words here and there to (hopefully) steer them to like me sufficiently or whatnot.*

Very interesting observation. I think you typed them correctly! I have some thoughts on this. It's somewhat of a general question, let me map this out real quick.

So, control of any kind is Se. But! An ethical element is needed to make it personal. Se + logics controls facts, laws, topics, accuracy, systems, and so on. Se + ethics though... they know how to control people, hands-on. In a positive and negative sense, depending on disposition and context. I imagined looking at any SEE, they are the epitome of knowing how to allocate human resources for good or bad purposes. That would be "controlling". Do you know what I mean?

In your situation, you would actually be the one in control, ethically, aided by your Se HA. The LSI is more in charge of the situation as it fits into his or her framework of rules, making sure that those rules are not broken. In comparison to an SEE, who is supervised by exactly this framework, their approach is rigid just as you say. In a sense of keeping everything together instead of intrusively allocating everyone SeFi style. Did this help?

I'll have to think about it. When I consider my personal history, I would say I have a strong tendency to resist whatever SEEs might be trying to do, to actively argue with them, or to argue toward others that they should not do what an SEE is advocating. None of this has been very serious in nature. Sometimes it has even been comical! And we can generally patch it up. I tend to take ESIs more seriously, and with them I suppose either we align pretty strongly with mutually supportive ideas, or we split off and do our own things because we don't agree. The middle ground is narrow.

This is all to say that I'm not sure I easily see Se + Fi as knowing how to control people. I have to run back through my mental inventory of Gamma SFs to see how that might have worked from other people's perspectives.

Oddly, I don't find LSIs controlling. I might see them as niggling or rigid, but I can't imagine how they even might have the ability to actually control me. Is that why they're my duals? Why is that when ppl talk about LSIs, I find I see them so differently than people describe? Have I typed a bunch of IEIs as LSI?

Heh this is what I meant. You influence them naturally, they also influence you naturally because the Ti vs Fe (and Se vs Ni) communication aligns well. I'm curious now, what sort of stuff do you perceive as controlling?

I do not think that LXIs want to control anything or anybody not directly associated with their plans; they will even try to avoid offering opinions because the last thing that they want is more responsibility. However, they can be obsessive about fulfilling their plans and responsibilities, and if one is associated with either, then that person will definitely feel their attempts to possessively control their plan. If one is standing in their way, they can be absolutely ruthless and if one is the object of their loyalty or devotion, they can be so protective that they sometimes will attempt to limit that person's freedom for, as they would say, "their own good". This may be somewhat acceptable when they're right but when they're wrong, well.......

I do not think that LXIs want to control anything or anybody not directly associated with their plans; they will even try to avoid offering opinions because the last thing that they want is more responsibility. However, they can be obsessive about fulfilling their plans and responsibilities, and if one is associated with either, then that person will definitely feel their attempts to possessively control their plan. If one is standing in their way, they can be absolutely ruthless and if one is the object of their loyalty or devotion, they can be so protective that they sometimes will attempt to limit that person's freedom for, as they would say, "their own good". This may be somewhat acceptable when they're right but when they're wrong, well.......

Hahaha oh god, right. Better be right (responding to the last lines here).

Btw why were you addressing this specifically to me? I don't think I ever said anything against this. I actually agree with a lot of this description you gave. The one thing that doesn't apply is not wanting to offer opinions. I do offer them pretty easily. Except when I do see that it would involve too much time explaining further. If that counts as not wanting to take on the responsibility of doing so.

I do not think that LXIs want to control anything or anybody not directly associated with their plans; they will even try to avoid offering opinions because the last thing that they want is more responsibility. However, they can be obsessive about fulfilling their plans and responsibilities, and if one is associated with either, then that person will definitely feel their attempts to possessively control their plan. If one is standing in their way, they can be absolutely ruthless and if one is the object of their loyalty or devotion, they can be so protective that they sometimes will attempt to limit that person's freedom for, as they would say, "their own good". This may be somewhat acceptable when they're right but when they're wrong, well.......

a.k.a. I/O

Originally Posted by Myst

Hahaha oh god, right. Better be right (responding to the last lines here).

Btw why were you addressing this specifically to me? I don't think I ever said anything against this. I actually agree with a lot of this description you gave. The one thing that doesn't apply is not wanting to offer opinions. I do offer them pretty easily. Except when I do see that it would involve too much time explaining further. If that counts as not wanting to take on the responsibility of doing so.

@Rebelondeck, this is spot on for LXI's, with @Myst's exception for LSI's. It is a much better description of the LSI's actions than my too-simple statement that they can try to "control" me. In fact, it gets to the heart of one of the best things about LSI's, which is the fact that they genuinely care about people in ways which can be very supportive. This is a very long way from the narcissistic attention I got from my mother, who did try to control me.

I actually remember the moment when I first felt this concern in the LSI that I was seeing. We were just hanging out at her place, I had just fixed her car, she had arranged some flowers on her deck and was making dinner and we were just talking about anything at all, and I remember feeling truly cared for, sort of like coming home to a home that I never had, and being quietly astonished at how good it felt.
In retrospect, the times that she tried to influence my actions were all directed at having us spend more time together. I travel a lot, and she once said she was angry at me for not being around more. But in a year, that was the only criticism she voiced.
Well, we were once talking about feelings, and how I don't express them easily, and she said she wished I were more expressive, but she understood that that's just the way I am.
Damn that Fe/Fi divide.

Heh this is what I meant. You influence them naturally, they also influence you naturally because the Ti vs Fe (and Se vs Ni) communication aligns well. I'm curious now, what sort of stuff do you perceive as controlling?

I have found people of all quadras controlling. Here are some things that qualify as controlling for me:

* Denying me my point of view
* Telling me how I feel, assuming you can understand that
* Setting up situations that serve your needs and not mine
* Treating me like an object
* Gaslighting
* Discouraging me from having friends
* Leaving me to do all the grunt work
* Mansplaining or any kind of condescension
* Lying about me
* Lying to me (following a pattern of deceit)
* Trying to impose rigid gender roles on me
* Making unilateral decisions when my input should have been sought
* Using insulting language to talk about me, or directly insulting me
* Forcing me to have sex
* Threatening me
* Bullying me
* Harassing me
* Using me
* Nickel-and-diming me
* Underpaying me

Things like that. These things are actual controlling behaviors. Any type can do these things -- woot! Equal opportunity.

do you think that gaslighting can be due to being controlled of other quadra? What im reading on it is that your reality get undervalued and an other is pushed on you and you start to go crazy.

I think there's a possibility that intertype or interquadra conflict or could make some of these bad behaviors more pronounced, but I've also seen messed-up people with messed-up duals and activity partners and family members who just reinforced each other's BS.

I associate gaslighting specifically with dark-triad personality problems and am not sure I see it as related to quadral conflict

do you think that gaslighting can be due to being controlled of other quadra? What im reading on it is that your reality get undervalued and an other is pushed on you and you start to go crazy.

Gaslighting is something that manipulative and controlling people do, and doesn't have really anything to do with socionics, in my opinion. It's simply a way to control through indirect means. It's not that someone doesn't value your reality in any kind of quadra-related way, it's that they are purposefully trying to manipulate your reality and get you to question your perceptions so you will depend on theirs instead.

I have found people of all quadras controlling. Here are some things that qualify as controlling for me:

Hmm, ok. A lot of these things you listed are incredibly unfair especially when it's clear it's intentionally done but I wouldn't feel controlled by some of it since I have a choice to respond.

What I call controlling is when behaviour is directly controlled by the person (or direct attempt at doing so). The rest is selfish, unfair etc, so crap, yes, but the other party still has a choice to respond in whatever way they want to.

I guess if those are done intentionally to manipulate, that's a form of control (or attempt at it) too. So in that sense I get what you mean even if to me that's weirdly indirect.

If one wants relationships with Ijs, one first must get to intimately know their plans, which may not be all that forthcoming right off the bat; it'll take time and a superficial understanding won't do. Many Ijs may think that they don't have plans but if one looks deep enough, they're there. All the time that you'll be spending trying to figure out the Ijs' plans, they will be rationalizing you, your probing and your actions. Their main concern will be whether or not you can be integrated into their plans and for your own protection, you have to find out exactly the same thing because they may not get it right in the beginning but later will wash their hands of you quickly. They'll readily give opinions and signals, not as much to cater to you but rather to test you, and much of this behaviour is involuntary. In the beginning, if their responses seem somewhat casual and non specific, then they may not be all that interested either the subject or the potential relationship - it can be hard to distinguish.

Hmm, ok. A lot of these things you listed are incredibly unfair especially when it's clear it's intentionally done but I wouldn't feel controlled by some of it since I have a choice to respond.

What I call controlling is when behaviour is directly controlled by the person (or direct attempt at doing so). The rest is selfish, unfair etc, so crap, yes, but the other party still has a choice to respond in whatever way they want to.

I guess if those are done intentionally to manipulate, that's a form of control (or attempt at it) too. So in that sense I get what you mean even if to me that's weirdly indirect.

The themes behind what I listed would be that they're all moves that diminish my humanity, choice, power, and self-determination. This is why I find them to be controlling moves. People can do them unconsciously simply to further a hegemony without being individually controlling, but the result is I'm still going to experience it as a check on me.

I have found people of all quadras controlling. Here are some things that qualify as controlling for me:

* Denying me my point of view
* Telling me how I feel, assuming you can understand that
* Setting up situations that serve your needs and not mine
* Treating me like an object
* Gaslighting
* Discouraging me from having friends
* Leaving me to do all the grunt work
* Mansplaining or any kind of condescension
* Lying about me
* Lying to me (following a pattern of deceit)
* Trying to impose rigid gender roles on me
* Making unilateral decisions when my input should have been sought
* Using insulting language to talk about me, or directly insulting me
* Forcing me to have sex
* Threatening me
* Bullying me
* Harassing me
* Using me
* Nickel-and-diming me
* Underpaying me

Things like that. These things are actual controlling behaviors. Any type can do these things -- woot! Equal opportunity.

Oh yes. People from the Quadra called "Toxic Masculinity" have proven to demonstrate these behaviors. The four types found in this Quadra are called Psychopath, Narcissist, Abuser and CEO. A classic among these types is Enneagram 10 which describes the core fear of being castrated and called a woman, since being femininity is diminishing. Integration happens through soft and healing gay romance that will free all women and other men from this Quadra's misguided ways

If one wants relationships with Ijs, one first must get to intimately know their plans, which may not be all that forthcoming right off the bat; it'll take time and a superficial understanding won't do. Many Ijs may think that they don't have plans but if one looks deep enough, they're there. All the time that you'll be spending trying to figure out the Ijs' plans, they will be rationalizing you, your probing and your actions. Their main concern will be whether or not you can be integrated into their plans and for your own protection, you have to find out exactly the same thing because they may not get it right in the beginning but later will wash their hands of you quickly. They'll readily give opinions and signals, not as much to cater to you but rather to test you, and much of this behaviour is involuntary. In the beginning, if their responses seem somewhat casual and non specific, then they may not be all that interested either the subject or the potential relationship - it can be hard to distinguish.

Hm, well I have been pretty upfront with the plans stuff, right away when I thought of something. But that was with people who I already knew, hm. Makes sense.

Casual and non-specific responses... it just means I'm keeping a distance. Still keeping it for now (may allow this to change later) or already decided to forever keep it. Quite good at keeping up this wall in any case (once a friend of mine called it that).

Originally Posted by golden

The themes behind what I listed would be that they're all moves that diminish my humanity, choice, power, and self-determination. This is why I find them to be controlling moves. People can do them unconsciously simply to further a hegemony without being individually controlling, but the result is I'm still going to experience it as a check on me.

Well if they are done with the intention to diminish your power and self-determination etc that's really bad controlling moves. Direct or indirect. Otoh I can see versions of some of the things in your list as ways to control the situation for own ends without intending to diminish the opponent in any way. That doesn't mean I'd agree with those moves either since they still don't take the other person into account. I guess, when seeing them as controlling also includes the assumption that they'd respond to the opponent disagreeing or fighting back in a negative way trying to control the situation and/or the person just even more strongly. And I can see how most of the stuff in the list are easily red flags in terms of making it likely that the person with such moves would respond this way.

Idunno. I'm like Shrek now because I want my space, I'm not liked, and I'm very difficult to get to know. I'm burnt out and let down and already wasted invested time on the wrong men and developed trust issues. It would be hard to romance me at this point because I'm so paranoid about men's ulterior motives. I don't even know anymore what would work on me as an LSI.

Idunno. I'm like Shrek now because I want my space, I'm not liked, and I'm very difficult to get to know. I'm burnt out and let down and already wasted invested time on the wrong men and developed trust issues. It would be hard to romance me at this point because I'm so paranoid about men's ulterior motives. I don't even know anymore what would work on me as an LSI.

I don't have any suggestions, just the observation that I may have fairly similar attitudes and reactions, and I don't want "romance" and haven't for a very long time. What I suppose I've usually wanted was more of a raw, direct meeting of minds and bodies with a lot of tacit recognition of how we are shaped (and misshapen) by society and family, so how people experience one another is always more an indicator and an approximation than a truth. Knowing this, I have a sense of how close or not-close I can actually get to another human being. There is always a limit, always something I cannot reach in another person. To assume otherwise is disrespectful.

So I don't think anything "works on" anyone else. With my LSI friends, I suppose I haven't really done anything except try to see as much about their reality as I can, and validate their experiences and point of view. I see things that appear fragile and strong in them at the same time, and I kind of don't try to touch any of that directly, but more invisibly um . . . I guess envelop it in some way and just let it be.

Idunno. I'm like Shrek now because I want my space, I'm not liked, and I'm very difficult to get to know. I'm burnt out and let down and already wasted invested time on the wrong men and developed trust issues. It would be hard to romance me at this point because I'm so paranoid about men's ulterior motives. I don't even know anymore what would work on me as an LSI.

:/ Sounds like you want to figure out how things went wrong, how they were the wrong men, who aren't the wrong men, etc and get back in control over these situations (more control than ever before, actually). I hope you get around this issue in the future.

I don't have any suggestions, just the observation that I may have fairly similar attitudes and reactions, and I don't want "romance" and haven't for a very long time. What I suppose I've usually wanted was more of a raw, direct meeting of minds and bodies with a lot of tacit recognition of how we are shaped (and misshapen) by society and family, so how people experience one another is always more an indicator and an approximation than a truth. Knowing this, I have a sense of how close or not-close I can actually get to another human being. There is always a limit, always something I cannot reach in another person. To assume otherwise is disrespectful.

So I don't think anything "works on" anyone else. With my LSI friends, I suppose I haven't really done anything except try to see as much about their reality as I can, and validate their experiences and point of view. I see things that appear fragile and strong in them at the same time, and I kind of don't try to touch any of that directly, but more invisibly um . . . I guess envelop it in some way and just let it be.

Again the directness theme. I again have to agree.

How do you mean it's disrespectful -where you mention this issue- or what is it exactly that's disrespectful?